GPLv3 will help FreeBSD take some users away from Linux, according to the founder and vice president of The FreeBSD Foundation.
Writing in the FreeBSD Foundation's August newsletter, Justin T. Gibbs said "GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial users of open source software.
"Against the backdrop of GPLv3, the stark difference between the BSD licensing philosophy and that of the Free Software Foundation are only too clear," he said.
One difference Gibbs saw was future-proofing the licences.
"A GPL proponent might argue that a licence for free software must be upgraded periodically since we cannot anticipate what new use models for free software might be developed that restrict freedom. The BSD licence is as permissive as possible exactly because we cannot predict the future or to what beneficial purpose (commercial or otherwise) our software will be used," said Gibbs.
Citing high support costs and an inability to guarantee adherence to specification for licensing, Gibbs said "now was perfect time to clarify the differences [between GPLv3 and BSD licenses] and start to engage with large current and potential users of open source software to understand their use models and how the GPLv3 might impact them".
Gibbs said the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an effective response to GPLv3 and he implored the community to make the most of the opportunity it provided.
1
Kiran Patil - 03/09/07
Great power comes with great responsibility.
Having Freedom is not alone important, you should have the courage to protect it from patent aliens.
Along with Freedom we need protection.
This is where Freesoftware is moving along with GPLv3.
» Report offensive content
2
Resedit - 04/09/07
The exact reason why Apple chose BSD for their kernel.
» Report offensive content
3
SPM - 04/09/07
The author doesn't seem to have a good understanding of open source licenses, and this isn't a problem for GPL3 or Linux as the author claims, for the reasons given below.
1) Any code that is licensed under FreeBSD can be immediately relicensed under GPL3 by anyone who wants to - that is what the BSD license is all about. The reverse is not true.
2) Linux is licensed under GPL2 not GPL3, so worries about GPL3 aren't going to leas to users switching to FreeBSD.
3) It is the people who write the code and not the users who get to decide which license code is distributed under. If the code users want to use is available under BSD, than they may use it under the terms of the BSD license. The problem is that most open source code is licensed under GPL2, GPL3 or other open source licenses as opposed to FreeBSD, with GPL2 being by far the most popular, and GPL3 being by far the most rapidly growing license. The simple reason for this is that developers prefered GPL2 in the past / prefer GPL3 now to other licenses, and so choose these to license their code under.
FreeBSD pre-dated Linux, but never really caught on with users like Linux did because FreeBSD lacked adequate applications and development manpower because developers didn't like it's business model which allows theft of their code by competitors who are not required to give back modifications in return.
» Report offensive content
4
Dave - 04/09/07
This article should be titled "GPLv3 to drive commercial users from Linux to FreeBSD?" or even better, "GPLv3 to drive hardware manufacturers from Linux to FreeBSD?"
GPL v2 says that if you make derivative software, you have to share. GPL v3 says that if you use v3-only code, you have to open your device for everyone to hack, bypassing your business model entirely, and adding to your costs of providing support. I'm an embedded linux architect, and if Linus caves and introduces v3 into the kernel, I'll either fork the kernel or switch to a closed OS like integrity.
» Report offensive content
5
Anton - 04/09/07
BSD License is the true open source because it is really "open" to anyone for any purpose, and it does not force on you dogmas or ethics. With GPL you cannot do (but with BSD you can) at least following:
* license the final as you wish
* build upon, improve and keep your IP private
* avoid GPL lock in (dual licensing when single vendor both distributes GPL code and sells commercial licenses)
* integrate your software with existing open source product
For what I can tell most ISVs (both large and small) try to avoid GPL at all cost because of it's restrictive and viral nature. And I am sure most free/hobbyist developers don't really care what the license is, and do GPL only because RMS has imposed it on them. If there were more "educated" open source ethics, and more people really cared GPL would have been extinct by now. Luckily in a market driven economy the industry phases out the less "open" solutions in a evolutionary manner, and I am glad to acknowledge that FreeBSD is one of the driving forces behind that.
» Report offensive content
6
Anton - 04/09/07
BSD License is the true open source because it is really "open" to anyone for any purpose, and it does not force on you dogmas or ethics. With GPL you cannot do (but with BSD you can) at least following:
* license the final as you wish
* build upon, improve and keep your IP private
* avoid GPL lock in (dual licensing when single vendor both distributes GPL code and sells commercial licenses)
* integrate your software with existing open source product
For what I can tell most ISVs (both large and small) try to avoid GPL at all cost because of it's restrictive and viral nature. And I am sure most free/hobbyist developers don't really care what the license is, and do GPL only because RMS has imposed it on them. If there were more "educated" open source ethics, and more people really cared GPL would have been extinct by now. Luckily in a market driven economy the industry phases out the less "open" solutions in a evolutionary manner, and I am glad to acknowledge that FreeBSD is one of the driving forces behind that.
» Report offensive content
7
MikeFM - 04/09/07
FreeBSD is welcome to have those users that are vultures. They take but don't contribute so please let these people become your problem instead of ours. As for me, I'll continue to use mostly Linux for my servers (I do use a FreeNAS server and a couple Windows servers too.) and development environments.
» Report offensive content
8
MikeFM - 04/09/07
FreeBSD is welcome to have those users that are vultures. They take but don't contribute so please let these people become your problem instead of ours. As for me, I'll continue to use mostly Linux for my servers (I do use a FreeNAS server and a couple Windows servers too.) and development environments.
» Report offensive content
9
MikeFM - 04/09/07
FreeBSD is welcome to have those users that are vultures. They take but don't contribute so please let these people become your problem instead of ours. As for me, I'll continue to use mostly Linux for my servers (I do use a FreeNAS server and a couple Windows servers too.) and development environments.
» Report offensive content
10
SPM - 04/09/07
Quoting Dave:
(quote)
This article should be titled "GPLv3 to drive commercial users from Linux to FreeBSD?" or even better, "GPLv3 to drive hardware manufacturers from Linux to FreeBSD?"
GPL v2 says that if you make derivative software, you have to share. GPL v3 says that if you use v3-only code, you have to open your device for everyone to hack, bypassing your business model entirely, and adding to your costs of providing support. I'm an embedded linux architect, and if Linus caves and introduces v3 into the kernel, I'll either fork the kernel or switch to a closed OS like integrity.
(unquote)
I think your understanding of the licenses is somewhat lacking. What exactly are you trying to say? If you make derivatives of code licensed under BSD software, sure you can steal the BSD coders software and not give anything back - something you can't do with GOL2 and GPL3. This is of course a lot of incentive for those who wish to steal other peoples, but a not a lot of incentive for those who would contribute code to a BSD license for other's to steal, since it blows any business model based on profiting from your own code out of the water. After all, that is the reason you object to contributing code under GPL3/GPL2 - because you can't take other people's large codebase and make money out of it without contributing your small modifications in return. In fact, there is even less reason for you to contribute your code under the BSD license, which I am certain you would never contemplate doing for the reasons you made so very clear.
There are a lot of people who think exactly like you, takers who don't want to give, which is why very little code gets contributed to licenses like BSD, and why GPL2 and GPL3 are vastly more successful than BSD and has such a huge contributed codebase and user base.
As for your forking Linux, you sound like the archetypal BSer. How much code do have you actually contribute to Linux? You are aware that you can't fork other people's code are you not? You have to rewrite the whole lot yourself if you want to fork it. Even Microsoft hasn't got the ability or resources to do this, and I am pretty darned sure you haven't either - if indeed you have ever written any code at all.
» Report offensive content
11
RuiSeabra - 04/09/07
"GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial users of open source software."
Cut the crap. This phrase is correctly read like this:
"GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial leachers of open source software."
No Free Software or Open Source software license affects in any way an user in the ways this ... says it. Only leaches have such problems. Good bye and good riddance.
Pretty soon now we'll be reading about how "bwa bwa bwa they don't give back... they don't have to, but it would be nice". The GPL solves this problem by giving equal opportunities to all at all times.
» Report offensive content
12
Jonathan - 04/09/07
SPM,
1) It is important to make the distinction that code which is licensed under the FreeBSD license cannot be relicensed by anyone other than the code's author. There was a recent controversy over this issue, in which some rogue Linux developers illicitly relicensed code (see: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Relicensing_Code ). However, code licensed under the FreeBSD license is compatible with the GPL and readily usable with it. For what I think is good insight into combining different licenses, see: http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/deleting-copyright-clauses-18657 and http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code Those who actually relicense BSD-licensed code without the author's permission are breaking the law. Although, adding "large pieces of originality" allows putting in a different and separate non-conflicting license in addition to the existing license (Please, read the "Stealing vs. Sharing" article for a more in-depth explanation).
2) The Linux kernel will not be relicensed, but much of the user software that provide functionality in conjunction with the kernel could be. This could create problems, as Mr. Gibbs had said in the linked article:
"Some use models that were possible under "loopholes" in GPLv2 are now explicitly forbidden in GPLv3. Appliance vendors in particular [...] will no longer have the freedom to use GPLv3 software and restrict modification of the software installed on their hardware."
Instead, these users may wish to work with the community that supports permissive software licenses which would not restrict them in this manner.
3) Although users do not decide the code's license, they can create the demand for software under a certain license. If there is enough demand, it is likely that a supply will be created (so long as it is to the benefit, in some way, of the suppliers). Basic economics. One possible solution: these vendors could encourage developers to create this software by promoting permissive software licenses and the permissive software license community.
Finally, there were a number of reasons that the BSDs did not catch on as well as Linux, many of which were external issues and many of which are now resolved (see: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/article.html#WHY-IS-BSD-NOT-BETTER-KNOWN). However, nowadays they certainly do not lack adequate applications and manpower. Right now, FreeBSD has 17576 ports available, as well as native binary compatibility layers for other systems, such as Linux, in addition to regular emulation provided by third party programs.
Ironically, while developers may not have liked, as you said, a "model which allows theft of their code by competitors who are not required to give back modifications in return," many GPL developers are doing what they would prefer others not to do when they wrap the GPL around BSD licensed code. To quote Mr. de Raadt (please see "Stealing vs. Sharing Code"):
"GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.
Ironic.
I hope some people in the GPL community will give that some thought. Your license may benefit you, but you could lose friends you need. The GPL users have an opportunity to 'develop community', to keep an ethic of sharing alive.
If the Linux developers wrap GPL's around things we worked very hard on, it will definately not be viewed as community development.
Thank you for thinking about this."
» Report offensive content
13
Kenneth Jakobsen - 04/09/07
Wow newsflash!.
Proponents of permissive licenses, also thinks GPLv3 is bad!. Geez!.
» Report offensive content
14
jerseydevil - 04/09/07
An organization dealing with national Security - CAN NOT - share there code with the world. This area of in-roads of linux has been halted, or at minimum under serious scrutiny.
» Report offensive content
15
ERM - 04/09/07
"An organization dealing with national Security - CAN NOT - share there code with the world. This area of in-roads of linux has been halted, or at minimum under serious scrutiny."
There's been a bit of FUD in these comments. The GPL only requires you to share code if you put it out there. If it's kept internal to the government, it does not have to be shared. That's why Google doesn't need to share their Google Linux.
» Report offensive content
16
ERM - 04/09/07
"An organization dealing with national Security - CAN NOT - share there code with the world. This area of in-roads of linux has been halted, or at minimum under serious scrutiny."
There's been a bit of FUD in these comments. The GPL only requires you to share code if you put it out there. If it's kept internal to the government, it does not have to be shared. That's why Google doesn't need to share their Google Linux.
» Report offensive content